TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order and answering the reference sent by the Initiating Officer. 2. The appellant, Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra is considered to be the benamidar. The benami transaction has been taken under Section 2(9)(D) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Amending Act of 2016 (in short "the PBPT Act"). Brief facts of the case: 3. It is a case where the Initiating Officer received a reference from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-III, Nagpur informing about seizure of a sum of Rs.67,50,000/- from the possession of Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra at Berth No. 46, Coach No. S-8, Train 12616 GT Express at Nagpur Railway Station on 16.02.2019. The inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anand Navalchand Pugliya was not accepted to be the real owner of the cash and accordingly reference was sent to the Adjudicating Authority, whose impugned order has been challenged by the appellant. Arguments of the Counsel for the appellant: 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra was working on commission basis for sale of articles. Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya was in the wholesale and retail business of trading in bullion, gold and silver jewellery. The amount of Rs.67,50,000/- was given to Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra for purchase of gold and accordingly he was travelling to Chennai while caught in the Railway Coach while the train was stationed at the Railway Station.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reference so as the Provisional Attachment Order. The appellants are seriously aggrieved by the impugned order, thus, challenge to the order has been made by way of appeals which deserve to be allowed. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondent : 8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeals. Elaborate arguments were made in reference to legal and factual issues raised by the appellants. We would refer those arguments while recording our findings in reference to the issues raised by the appellants to avoid repetition of one and the same fact. Findings of the Tribunal : 9. The fact given in the opening paras show that the Railway Protection Force, Nagpur found a sum of Rs.67,50,000/- with the appellant, Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash of Rs.67,50,000/-. He disclosed the amount aforesaid out of sale of jewellery and on the relevant date he was having 13 bills of sale of jewellery and collected the money but he was busy in counting the cash amount, thus, bills could not be issued. The Adjudicating Authority found that in the CCTV footage taken by the DDIT, Nagpur, it was revealed that only few customers came at the shop of Shri Pugliya. It was sufficient to contradict the entries in the bill book which was created as an afterthought otherwise during the business hours from 10.00AM to 8.00 PM the appellant could not make 13 bills only for the reason of counting the cash could not be accepted. We do not find any illegality in the finding to the facts recorded by the Ad....